Please write your Congressman NOW!!! HR 822 to be voted on - example e-mail

[jlutin]

Message Subject: Please vote for HR 822 with no amendments

Dear Congressman

I am writing to urge you to vote for HR 822 so it passes with no amendments.

As a senior citizen and disabled veteran, my stage in life makes me appear more vulnerable and more likely to be targeted as a potential victim for crime. Carrying a weapon to defend oneself is a right protected by the US and many state constitutions. The protections offered by the US Constitution should not be lessened when one crosses a state line.

As you are aware, those of us who choose to hold concealed weapons permits are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. We have unblemished records, have been photographed, had our backgrounds checked, offered character references, and in many instances have been fingerprinted and undergone training.

Those who claim that reciprocity would lead to more crime disregard the facts and pursue a political agenda based on "feel good" legislation that would do nothing to reduce crime and would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I hope you are successful in passing HR 822. Thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely,

 

[Nightmare45]

822 does not protect you in Federal Gun Free School Zones unless you have a concealed carry license in the issuing state if you need an amendment carry should be allowed in federal gun free school zones. 2nd Amendment says we can carry anywhere in the US.

 

[santa]

My rep intends to vote yes on this bill. Our gun rights were lost a little at a time and 822 changes direction to support gun rights. I know many who wish for 'Constutional Carry' everywhere and wont settle for less but it wont happen right away. 822 is a step in the right direction and is very much worth supporting. As far as 822 not covering the Federal Gun Free School Zone I suggest reading entire law and pay close attention to section 3 paragraph (B). it says " A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the SAME CONDTITIONS or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise allowed to by the state". The SAME means what it says. I have discussed this with a lawyer who specializes in firearms laws and he agrees that this paragraph overturns the 'same state requirement' regarding the school zone. Some disagree with me but in the end the courts will decide, not those of us posting on this subject. This bill will pass the House as more than half of the reps have co-sponsered it. It may even pass by a veto-proof majority. The Senate odds are mabye, but its an election year.

 

[DemocratGunOwner]

While you're asking the Federal government to override a state's right to choose which other states' legally-valid licenses it honors, make sure to ask them to support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and override a state's right to choose which other states' legally-valid licenses it honors.

 

[Nightmare45]

It is an election year and 822 will pass in House, as stated Senate maybe and some changes may come out of Senate, I for one will not be the test case for the Federal School Zone. Good Luck hope it flys.

 

[Unfettered Might]

While you're asking the Federal government to override a state's right to choose which other states' legally-valid licenses it honors, make sure to ask them to support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and override a state's right to choose which other states' legally-valid licenses it honors.

Marriage is not protected by the Bill of Rights. Apples and oranges.

 

[DemocratGunOwner]

Marriage is not protected by the Bill of Rights. Apples and oranges.

Neither is concealed carry. Whether either should be or not is of course open to debate, but as of now, neither is a Bill of Rights issue.

 

[Rustell]

Write your Congressman here... Link Removed

 

[tuts40]

Neither is concealed carry. Whether either should be or not is of course open to debate, but as of now, neither is a Bill of Rights issue.

Big red blinking neon, flush the toilet and spank you WRONG.

I see now how you apply your emotion in place of logic, you have earned the "D" behind your name now as far as I'm concerned but if you keep reading I'll show you how I'd like to help you. Carrying is NOT a Bill of Rights issue you say. That statement of yours is the crowning jewel now in your litany of... I'll stop here. I like to think I'm a patient man and as respectful as possible given what I've just read.

What is the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, Ed? "...shall not be infringed". Ring any bells? To bear (have, carry, take with you, have at your disposal) arms (guns of any kind) shall not be infringed (curtailed, limited, made less, transgressed against).

I like to think I'm open minded and welcome opposing points of view, but saying that gun rights (carry) are not a Bill of Rights issue? Here is a place where latte-philosophy rules, emotions and intentions matter more than "strong country" results, and ignorance of our Bill of Rights or the desire to destroy them exists openly, try it: Marxist (Communist) Discussion Forum / MCDF

We all know elite communists (marxists, socialists, progressives, liberals, whatever the current label is) want to disarm the populace for better control of them. ...Lets look at what the democrat party says about gun control, shall we?: Democratic Party on Gun Control

Sir, you may well have been misled by your political party and it's lap dog media. It's likely not your fault. Maybe you can get back in the swing of things and learn of the Bill of Rights, YOUR Bill of Rights, and how to protect them here: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=17 I've purchased these as well to pass them out: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=29 I would rather help you than insult you or embarrass you any further.

We all started learning somewhere, maybe this is a good day for us both! The Tea Party loves the Constitution, loves our freedom, wants smaller government for a stronger job market and better economy along with a strong military to ensure peace by making it impossible to win against us thereby keeping peace alive for the most part. The Tea Party is nothing more than a grass roots conservative movement. Conservative. We'd welcome a warrior, Ed, like you. You fight for your beliefs, and your beliefs in terms of freedom, from what I've read, puts you more in the conservative portion of the Republican camp or even the Tea Party than in the democrat camp. I did read along the way that you like a strong country, respect our Constitution and desire an economic opportunity for all, right?

As for 822, I'm torn between reciprocity and States rights...

 

[DemocratGunOwner]

If you feel that Concealed carry is covered by the second amendment (which I do, by the way,) then you should be in favor of it.

My comment was based on the fact that Supreme Court decisions currently state that it is not. That's where my "open to interpretation" comes from - my interpretation is that open and concealed carry without a permit should be declared legal at the Federal level.

The fact that right now, Federal law states that concealed carry is not a "right". Therefore, since it is not a "right" (again, by current law and court decision, not by my belief,) it is something that is legislated. Because, right now it is something that is legislated, and we have this mishmash of laws, I would rather have the Federal government declare at least some continuity between the states. Just as they already do for the privilege that is drivers licenses. If that is the first step toward having carry be considered a Federal right, all the better.

Next step? Federal "shall-issue" Concealed Carry permits, with consistent laws across the entire country. Apply to the ATF, get your permit, be legal by the same rules *EVERYWHERE*. Then, the same for open carry (not the permit part, the 'same rules' part.) Then, no permits.

Yes, I should like the Tea Party. But it's been taken over by elements who care only about small personal interests (the Koch brothers, among others,) and isn't grass roots any more. If the people take it back from the special interests, I could support it again. The same is starting to happen with Occupy. I support the general idea, but it's starting to get taken over, and is losing my support in the process.

I used to be a Republican. But as soon as they decided that legislating personal behavior was more important than allowing personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, they lost me. Now, I'm "small l" libertarian. I would like to make a difference, and unfortunately, that means picking one of the big two parties. Right now, the Democratic Party is more open to accepting my beliefs than the Republican Party is. I am openly accepted as a Democrat here. If I were to try to be as involved in the local Republican Party instead, I'd be vilified as a "RINO".

As for federal power vs. states rights? I'm of the opinion that more freedom is better. If a Federal law guarantees more freedom, even at the expense of a state's rights, then the Federal government should trump state law. If a state law guarantees more freedom, then the state law should take precedence. For example, Oregon has a "Death With Dignity" law that makes physician-assisted suicide legal (under certain conditions.) I vigorously opposed the attempts by the Bush administration to use Federal power to nullify this law. This law allows MORE freedom, therefore it should absolutely not be overridden by the Federal government. HR 822 grants more freedom, therefore IT should override state law.

 

[tuts40]

If you feel that Concealed carry is covered by the second amendment (which I do, by the way,) then you should be in favor of it.

My comment was based on the fact that Supreme Court decisions currently state that it is not. That's where my "open to interpretation" comes from - my interpretation is that open and concealed carry without a permit should be declared legal at the Federal level.

The fact that right now, Federal law states that concealed carry is not a "right". Therefore, since it is not a "right" (again, by current law and court decision, not by my belief,) it is something that is legislated. Because, right now it is something that is legislated, and we have this mishmash of laws, I would rather have the Federal government declare at least some continuity between the states. Just as they already do for the privilege that is drivers licenses. If that is the first step toward having carry be considered a Federal right, all the better.

Next step? Federal "shall-issue" Concealed Carry permits, with consistent laws across the entire country. Apply to the ATF, get your permit, be legal by the same rules *EVERYWHERE*. Then, the same for open carry (not the permit part, the 'same rules' part.) Then, no permits.

Yes, I should like the Tea Party. But it's been taken over by elements who care only about small personal interests (the Koch brothers, among others,) and isn't grass roots any more. If the people take it back from the special interests, I could support it again. The same is starting to happen with Occupy. I support the general idea, but it's starting to get taken over, and is losing my support in the process.

I used to be a Republican. But as soon as they decided that legislating personal behavior was more important than allowing personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, they lost me. Now, I'm "small l" libertarian. I would like to make a difference, and unfortunately, that means picking one of the big two parties. Right now, the Democratic Party is more open to accepting my beliefs than the Republican Party is. I am openly accepted as a Democrat here. If I were to try to be as involved in the local Republican Party instead, I'd be vilified as a "RINO".

As for federal power vs. states rights? I'm of the opinion that more freedom is better. If a Federal law guarantees more freedom, even at the expense of a state's rights, then the Federal government should trump state law. If a state law guarantees more freedom, then the state law should take precedence. For example, Oregon has a "Death With Dignity" law that makes physician-assisted suicide legal (under certain conditions.) I vigorously opposed the attempts by the Bush administration to use Federal power to nullify this law. This law allows MORE freedom, therefore it should absolutely not be overridden by the Federal government. HR 822 grants more freedom, therefore IT should override state law.

The only reason I hit "Reply With Quote" is so that after you read your post again and you put your head in your hands, you cannot go back and change it. The idea of continually finding examples of how you have been misled is getting tedius. Therefore I think the time to turn this thread loose has arrived for me.

So, have a good night and a great Sunday.

 

[DemocratGunOwner]

Uh, not sure what you're trying to say.

To summarize my point more succinctly: While yes, Concealed carry (and open carry) should be considered by Federal law as "protected nationwide under the second amendment," they presently are not. Because they are not, they are not "constitutional issues", and therefore a CHL is roughly analogous to a marriage license. It is something issued by a state, that, at present, other states have the right to refuse to acknowledge. I would like both conditions rectified. A license (or contract, or any other legal document,) that is accepted as legal in one state should not be able to be ignored by other states.

 

[snatale42]

Neither is concealed carry. Whether either should be or not is of course open to debate, but as of now, neither is a Bill of Rights issue.

WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?

 

[mrjam2jab]

WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?

While I am all for this bill to pass....I do have to touch on this....

You are referring to 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Govt from infringing on that Right. It does not, however, prevent a State Govt from doing so.

 

[Drunkbeater]

WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?

While I am all for this bill to pass....I do have to touch on this....

You are referring to 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Govt from infringing on that Right. It does not, however, prevent a State Govt from doing so.

The Tenth Amendment does prevent states from infringing on the first nine amendments.

 

[Drunkbeater]

No, I mean the Tenth Amendment. Please, read the Bill of Rights! The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.

 

[Drunkbeater]

No I am not. I am talking about the Tenth Amendment. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, I am talking about the Ninth Amendment, too.

 

[Drunkbeater]

Our right to bear arms is not a privilege or an immunity...it is a right. So, once again, how exactly does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to not infringing on our right to bear arms...it doesn't. I'm asking you to please read the Ninth Amendment again.
What the Tenth Amendment is saying, is that any state can come up with their own rights, as long as those rights don't violate this country's first nine. The Tenth Amendment does restrict the states.

 

[Drunkbeater]

You're right about "powers." I said "rights", but I meant "powers." The key words, though, "powers not delegated." In modern terms, that is saying that anything previously guaranteed is not left up to the states. That part of the Tenth Amendment is a restriction on the states.
Yes, states don't have rights, but they can come up with their own. If California wants to make a right that one can smoke pot, then they have the power to do that because nowhere in our country's constitution does it restrict it. Why do you think that prohibition failed? Because Congress realized that alcohol laws should be left up to the states. That's the reason that the ATF is a giant failure. In Arkansas, you have the right to hunt. People have fought against this for years, but it has always been upheld in court because that is a power not delagated in the Constitution.